Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Post History
Historians resort to source criticism rather than reproducible experiments. Well this is clearly not true. The whole purpose of archeology is the "experiment" phase of the scientific method. S...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Lundin
·
2024-03-12T08:03:28Z (2 months ago)
- > Historians resort to source criticism rather than reproducible experiments.
- Well this is clearly not true. The whole purpose of archeology is the "experiment" phase of the scientific method. Some historian has a theory about for example how Roman baths were designed, based on records etc. Then some archeologists dig up an actual bath in Pompeii and then they can verify or reject the theory.
- This whole procedure does of course become easier or harder based on how many written records as well as ruins/remains there are from that time and that civilization. Often a hypothesis can be made by studying similar cultures during the same period.
Frequently, historians have some sort of canon or likely agreement over how something must have been. Then new archeological findings proves it wrong.
- > Historians resort to source criticism rather than reproducible experiments.
- Well this is clearly not true. The whole purpose of archeology is the "experiment" phase of the scientific method. Some historian has a theory about for example how Roman baths were designed, based on records etc. Then some archeologists dig up an actual bath in Pompeii and then they can verify or reject the theory.
- This whole procedure does of course become easier or harder based on how many written records as well as ruins/remains there are from that time and that civilization. Often a hypothesis can be made by studying similar cultures during the same period.
- Frequently, historians have some sort of theoretical canon or likely probability regarding how something must have been. Then new archeological findings proves it wrong and they have to adjust the theories.
#1: Initial revision
by
Lundin
·
2024-03-12T08:02:25Z (2 months ago)
> Historians resort to source criticism rather than reproducible experiments. Well this is clearly not true. The whole purpose of archeology is the "experiment" phase of the scientific method. Some historian has a theory about for example how Roman baths were designed, based on records etc. Then some archeologists dig up an actual bath in Pompeii and then they can verify or reject the theory. This whole procedure does of course become easier or harder based on how many written records as well as ruins/remains there are from that time and that civilization. Often a hypothesis can be made by studying similar cultures during the same period. Frequently, historians have some sort of canon or likely agreement over how something must have been. Then new archeological findings proves it wrong.